Effective Frontline Fundraising Part 17

In Fundraising 101, youare told that major gifts tend to take 12 to 18 months to close. This is an average. It can take less time. And it can take more time. The 12 to 18 months indicates the time from your a.s.sessment visit to the solicitation. And sometimes the solicitation can hang there in the ether. Sometimes it gets an immediate yes or no, but it can also be received with silence for a long time.

That year to year-and-a-half requires constant work to reach a close. If your attentions are divided between doing major gift work and other things, expect things to take a bit longer.

You need to come up with a strategy for each of your major gift prospects after youave a.s.sessed them and deemed them viable prospects. Here are the questions that need to be asked when coming up with your strategy for a given prospect: When will you next visit this prospect face to face?

Who else from your organization, if anyone, should be brought into the gift conversation?

How many visits do you antic.i.p.ate before solicitation?

What will you communicate to the prospect between visits? What information should they be receiving?

What areas of your inst.i.tution do you antic.i.p.ate this donor supporting?

Will the solicitation be in person, a written/e-mailed proposal, or a combination of the two?

Will the prospect be removed from regular solicitations while the gift conversation is going on?

You should keep a master list of antic.i.p.ated solicitations and track them quarterly, to see if you are on schedule and on track or if adjustments need to be made (and they often do).

By the time you get to the solicitation, your prospect should know whatas coming. You never want the major gift solicitation to be a surprise, at least not the timing of it. The donor should know, clearly, that you plan to discuss closing on a gift when you walk into that meeting. The solicitation, the actual ask, is much like a regular ask. Whatas different is the background work youave done, the cultivation, the months of follow up, and zeroing in on the right area to solicit. Asking really does become just a function of adding zeroes. Itas the conversations up to that point, the philosophical level and the storytelling, and the case building that is different, and more elongated.

Iall close out this section with a reminder to practice saying the gift amounts out loud, so that your first time saying a$250,000a is not in front of your prospect. Youall trip or botch the delivery. And that is not the time to trip.

Trends in Major Gifts since 2008.

The fall of 2008 saw the biggest financial collapse since the Great Depression. Many industries and individuals have recovered, but at the time of this writing the jury is still out as to how stable the global economy is. With the debt ceiling debate still fresh, and with the current turmoil the European Union finds itself in, it is hard to know if we are really in the clear.

The philanthropic landscape looks very different today than it did in 2007. The good news is that there are exceptions to trends, and you shouldnat leave this section feeling despondent.

There are two very noticeable trends. One is that it is taking longer to close major gifts. Prospects are more reluctant to part with their money, even if they have recovered their lost wealth. The uncertainty in the economy makes it hard for people to predict what their portfolios will look like in two years.

The other trend is that it is hard to get multi-year pledges. This can be problematic when youare trying to build a fund over a three-to-five-year period. But many folks simply arenat willing to sign pledge forms these days, for the same reason that theyare not willing to give away what they once had no problems in relinquis.h.i.+ng.

The positive thing is that this is not a secret to anyone. And since there has been so much news about how badly nonprofits have been struggling during this economic downturn, it is easier to make the case for why you need money. The other side of this though is that other nonprofits are likely knocking on a prospectas door with the same message.

In short, itas a tougher environment than it once was for major gift work. Your once reliable prospects might not be as reliable now. You may need to go deeper into your call list, digging deeper into the B list than you once had to.

But donat despair. I just want you to have a realistic idea of what youare up against. There are still prospects out there with money to give away, and lots of it. And eventually they will pledge a five-year commitment. Itas just going to require a little more patience, a lot more digging, and really good storytelling.

Political Fundraising.

Or, How to Get Yourself into Trouble in Ten Easy Steps.

Campaign finance is an oft-discussed and equally oft-misunderstood topic. Itas a hot-b.u.t.ton issue and is sure to stir up the pa.s.sions of everyone on both sides of the debate. Itas not my job here to talk about whatas wrong or right with the current system, but rather to do my best to help you understand whatas at stake, and how political fundraising is very much the same and also very different from your average, run-of-the-mill nonprofit fundraising.

First, the Good News.

The good news is that campaign contributions are viewed by the courts, thus far, as free speech, and therefore are protected by the First Amendment. This means that, as a political organization, you generally have the law on your side with respect to unhindered fundraising. That is one thing that has usually been consistent about campaign contributions, particularly from individuals, even if there are limits to what an individual can contribute to a party, PAC (political action committee), or candidate in a given year. With the demise of soft money contributions from corporations, gifts from individuals have been allowed, with limitations, for quite some time (although now, with the advent of asuper-PACs,a it remains to be seen whether soft money might make a de facto comeback). The legal history is rich and fascinating, and far too complex for me to do any justice in this chapter. Just know that itas easy to get yourself into trouble, either with your supporters or with the law.

In this chapter, weall begin by talking about a few qualities of political fundraising that are distinct from the rest of the nonprofit world. Weall then move on to discuss fundraising strategies for parties, PACs, and candidates. Weall end with a meditation on what to do about the post-election fundraising hangover, which in essence is to take two aspirin, hydrate, and keep going.

Whatas Different from aRegulara Nonprofit Fundraising.

Letas begin by discussing some properties of political fundraising that differ from the rest of the nonprofit world. Weall discuss the visibility of campaign contributions, the temptation involved with campaign contributions, the inc.u.mbentas edge in fundraising and exposure, and the pace of political fundraising.

Visibility.

The most immediate difference in political fundraising is just how public the information is. Even though the posting of information is delayed, you can easily browse the flow of political contributions with a simple visit to Open Secrets (www.opensecrets.org). My one piece of advice is that you donat visit the site unless you have more than an hour. Itas so easy to get lost in the wealth of information (in a good way, of course). The site itself is fascinating because of the level of detail. You can see how much an individual gave to the Republican National Committee, for example, as well as a detailed breakdown of a certain representativeas donor roll. Itas a wild trip, and well worth the time if youare considering raising money for a candidate, a PAC, or a local political party. This website will leave you with absolutely zero doubt that political contributions are public information, accessible to anyone who wants to see them (you cannot give more than $50 anonymously1).

__________.

1 http://www.fec.gov/pages/brochures/citizens.shtml

Temptation.

The potential for moral hazard is also much higher in political and campaign fundraising because of a little term which you should commit to memory: quid pro quo. Quid pro quo is your mortal enemy and should be avoided. For you non-Latin scholars, quid pro quo means, in short, something for something. I give you a campaign contribution so that you break the backs of unions in your district. I write your party a big check to alter its stance on gay marriage. It can be hard to prove that a political decision or action was quid pro quo, but if it is proven, you will get nailed. Have no doubt.

It can be tempting for any nonprofit to overpromise, but this is especially true for a political party, PAC, or candidate, and all the more so if a big gift is dangling in front of you. History suggests that, although itas somewhat fuzzy, a line does nonetheless exist between allowing a donor extra face time with you, and promising outright or at least implicitly suggesting that they will get what they want because of their campaign contributions. The general rule should be that if it feels even the slightest bit off, youad better reject the gift, or say very explicitly (publicly and written down, so that it can be tracked) that you are in no way making policy decisions based on a political contribution. Itas so easy to enter office with the purest of intentions. However, reelection is always a consideration, and with the need to ama.s.s funds for your awar chest,a as itas often called, you may find yourself in a compromised position.

Velocity.

It is hard to overstate how quickly a fundraising shop in the political world can start running at breakneck speed. While this isnat necessarily different from other charitable fundraising, it is exaggerated in political campaign fundraising. This is owed in large part to the pace of the election cycle. It is difficult to exaggerate how hard candidates work to raise money for their campaigns. This is on top of the other tasks that they have (public-speaking engagements, town hall meetings, strategizing with staff, and, for inc.u.mbents, actually partic.i.p.ating in the political process). Itas a grueling schedule, and one thatas usually carried out only with the help of competent staff who then in turn delegate to vetted volunteers.

The Inc.u.mbent Advantage.

It might interest you to know that the majority of contributions from PACs, lobbyists, and lobbying organizations arenat necessarily partisan in nature. Rather, the inc.u.mbent candidate or party enjoys a severe fundraising advantage. What this means for you if you are a candidate challenging an inc.u.mbent is that you are faced with a unique set of obstacles in raising moneya"you are immediately disadvantaged by virtue of your status as an outsider. That isnat to say that it is impossible to raise money with equal efficiency, just that youare going to have to work a little bit harder (or maybe a lot harder).

You should feel free to use this fact in your appeals to your donors: you face an uphill battle against the inc.u.mbent, who already has a fundraising machine in place. Itas common enough practice to compare the size of your awar chesta to your opponentas. The underdog message can really sell.

Inc.u.mbents, or newly elected officials, you can expect this fundraising edge to bring with it the temptations I mentioned above.

Of course, certain lobbies make contributions to both sides of the aisle as a way to hedge against unfavorable outcomes (again, you can check out Open Secrets if you doubt this). The implication here is that there is the hope, on the part of the donor, that campaign contributions do influence policy decisions. Even smaller donors hold on to the belief that if enough of them give, theyall form a powerful base of support which must be heeded by policymakers. A look at the 2008 Obama campaign suggests that his marketing team understood this. (While he did raise a ton of money from small contributions, his campaign was not lacking in larger contributions. Nor was the Democratic National Committee.) Again, I can bark at you all day on how important it is to retain a healthy knowledge of this, but itas easy to forget and easy to get greedy when you see your opponent out-fundraising you.

Thus, to a degree much more p.r.o.nounced than with other nonprofits, you need to communicate clearly what donating to your campaign will not do for interested lobbies, individuals, and other groups. It is better to leave money on the table than to compromise your integrity (or break the law).

Recognition in the Marketplace.

The second advantage of an inc.u.mbent is in the compet.i.tion for exposure and name recognition. As noted, inc.u.mbents have a significant advantage in terms of their ability to fundraise, and the statistics for the reelection of inc.u.mbents who have served at least two terms are pretty discouraging for challengers. Whatas more, the inc.u.mbent already has the name recognition that an unelected challenger doesnat, and has a policy record (which, admittedly, could be good or bad).

Even in open elections, though, when an inc.u.mbent steps down and all parties are new to the game, it is hard at first to get any sort of name recognition. Then after that, it is hard to communicate your platform in such a way that people understand what you would do if elected.

The good news in US politics is that the two-party system, at least in many districts, makes it somewhat easier for folks to decide how theyare going to vote. The two main political parties that we have here in the US, as imperfect as they might be and as imperfect as the two-party system itself might be, do help voters order their priorities. The party system provides them with a calculus on how to vote without doing significant research into each candidate.

This of course raises the question of whether raising money is important at all, and whether or not itas necessary to maintain the breakneck pace of campaign fundraising just to keep up with your compet.i.tion. Letas a.s.sume, boldly, that fundraising does matter, so that we can focus on how to do a good job of it come election season.2 (And, by the way, itas always election season.) Getting recognized is a herculean task, to be sure. Even if the two-party system does help you with the general elections, youall still have to win the primaries, and before that you have to get on the ballot. These steps require a concerted effort at putting yourself out there, both to get exposure and to get money.

One final way in which campaign fundraising is distinct from other nonprofit fundraising is the zero sum nature of it. Whereas raising money for a womenas shelter does not preclude the same donor from giving to, say, PETA, giving to one candidate usually does imply that a donor wonat be making a gift to the opposing candidate. Taking that to the next level, whereas the success of the group that promotes healthy after-school activities does not preclude the success of the group that helps raise awareness about college among high school students, the election of one candidate does preclude the other candidate from holding office. In other words, there is a more heightened sense of compet.i.tion.

Thus, when crafting your message to potential donors, you need to be able to tell folks not only who you are and what you represent, but also how you are better than the other candidate.

__________.

2 Some data suggest that the general public puts more weight on how much a party or candidate raises, and less importance on how a party or candidate spends that money.

Canva.s.sing: Because Every Army Needs an Infantry.

Letas spend some time now discussing the slow, arduous process of getting name recognition, how to get it and how it segues into asking for money.

When I was fundraising in Boston, I had the privilege of having former Ma.s.sachusetts State Senator Jarrett Barrios speak to my team of fundraisers, and he offered some inside advice on how to run a successful campaign.

It might not come as a surprise that the most effective way to raise awareness and to get money and votes is also the least efficient: going door-to-door. The most effective person for this job will also find it a strange use of time: the candidate himself or herself. Itas very simple: candidates can best speak for their decisions or platform, and can most easily dispel rumors and put a prospective donor or voter at ease. Controlling the message becomes exponentially more difficult as the chain of communication gets pa.s.sed from full-time staff, to paid canva.s.ser, to volunteer.

If youare a candidate, investing in a door-to-door campaign effort can seem, on the surface, to be a bad use of your time and limited resources. But it makes sense to go door-to-door or to place yourself in busy sections of town to stop folks and have face-to-face conversations, especially at the local and regional levels. More than in other nonprofits, the practice of movement-building in campaign fundraising, particularly the direct action type, must be adopted.

Movement-buildinga"what a broad, sweeping term, right? How do we go about building this movement of support? The answer is as simple as it is frustrating: you have to have one-on-one conversations with as many people as possible.

While this can be achieved in part online, via mail, and via phone, there is no subst.i.tute for a face-to-face conversation. This is a very annoying, hard to accept truth, but it is a truth nonetheless. Especially in this day and age, in which peopleas inboxes are so inundated with e-mails, and, more often than not, your phone call will be screened, the face-to-face conversation may be the only time youall have someoneas undivided attention.3 Yes, you can contact more people by phone or e-mail in a given hour than you can by standing at busy intersections or knocking on doorsa"but a call or an e-mail is also easier to ignore.

__________.

3 Again, this is why most major gift conversations happen face-to-face and not over the phone or via e-mail.

Letas look at recent history, and turn to one of our nationas better modern organizers. Csar Chvez was the civil rights activist who founded what would become the United Farm Workers. The story goes that a student once asked Chvez how he organized.

His response: aFirst, I talk to one person. Then I talk to another person.a The student objected, saying, aNo, how do you organize?a Chvez responded again: aFirst, I talk to one person, then I talk to another person.a Given his success at mobilizing, I think we can feel safe in heeding his model. Talk to one person, and then talk to another.

In the modern political fundraising campaign, your canva.s.sers are those interlocutors, your conversational infantry who are out on the streets or going door-to-door talking to people about your campaign and, yes, ultimately building financial support for it.

I spent some time at the very beginning of the book explaining how the financial model of canva.s.sing works, but it makes sense in this particular conversation to take a second look at how and why it works.

If you have the resources to do so, it makes sense to pay your canva.s.sers. It increases their incentive to do a good job, plain and simple. Incentivizing the pay scale such that the top 20 percent of your canva.s.sers get paid more can sometimes make sense, but then you invite cheating. Thereas a fine balance between providing incentives to raise a ton of money and inviting questionable practices among your canva.s.sers. Of course, if you simply donat have the resources to pay canva.s.sers, you should be able to staff your canva.s.sing corps with volunteer labor. The young and the old usually have the time and gumption to get out there to help during campaign time.

When it comes to recruiting, either volunteers or paid canva.s.sers, you have to be aggressive to the point of being ruthless. You need to place recruitment posters everywhere that itas legal to post them, you need to be online, both via your website and via Craigslist, as well as other local services and social media (Facebook, Twitter, etc.), and you need to have someone available to answer phone or e-mail inquiries for as many hours of the day as you can. Get them in the door as quickly as possible, and get them hired as quickly as possible.

This might come as a shock, but the financial model of canva.s.sing presupposes that your door-to-door and street operations will very likely lose money if you pay your canva.s.sers. At the movement-building level, the first solicitation is an investment, not a money maker. So why do it?

Granted, you want your paid or volunteer canva.s.sers to bring in as much money as possible, but more than that, you want contact information. Any contributions that you get during the information collection will just be to help offset the costs of the canva.s.seras pay if theyare paid. If theyare not, well, then it is a money maker.